D&D 5E Inappropriate breasts on female monsters

[mcbobbo]

I still cannot accept the premise that D&D shapes culture when the opposite is so clearly obvious.

But without that premise, wherein lies the problem with sexism or the lack of sexism? Could one not just settle for the fact that dragonkin breasts are no more or less sexist than their target audience?

This goes to the good faith argument. To state 'dragonboobs are sexist and therefore wrong' you have to assert that they influence culture more than they are influenced by it.

Same with boobmail.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

it's something of a question why human women have them.)

Warning: my answer is based on Discovery channel I am not expert... even though I have two very nice B cups...

The way I understand it, in monkeys there are but cheek and but cleavage to attract a mate. When we stood up and became erect (ok, I have to be childish with that word in this context ) we need a cleavage on our fronts...

edit: witch makes it a perfect example for this thread... it is a visual cue evolved to be short hand for attractive woman...

 

[billd91]

the problem is that even when WotC went out of there way to say that dragonborn are not reptile in origin, and that they do breast feed, that wasn't good enough...

I think that's because most of us dragonborn-boob detractors saw it as an ad hoc justification for WotC pandering to guys with more boob-laden, overly sexualized female character art. And I still pretty much do.

The fact that there are female gamers who find that the dragonborn boobs increase their identification with their dragonborn characters, I think, is WotC getting lucky. It surprised me since the women in my group thought the idea of breasts on the creatures was pretty dumb. They're also highly science oriented so they found the presence of breasts not particularly credible, even in a fantasy setting.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I think that's because most of us dragonborn-boob detractors saw it as an ad hoc justification for WotC pandering to guys with more boob-laden, overly sexualized female character art. And I still pretty much do.

so you don't like something... then when you argued it didn't make sense, and they explained it did... you decided to ignore that it now made sense to keep argueing

The fact that there are female gamers who find that the dragonborn boobs increase their identification with their dragonborn characters, I think, is WotC getting lucky.

what about the fact that they have female playtesters and female focus groups that told them exactly what you are saying is "Lucky"

It surprised me since the women in my group thought the idea of breasts on the creatures was pretty dumb. They're also highly science oriented so they found the presence of breasts not particularly credible, even in a fantasy setting.

I know very few women that think that way (although more then 0). I personally like to play strong (as in high str not just personality) women, and having the + str race not seem feminine to me would be a mistake... one as big as dwarven beards on dwarven women...

 

[Alzrius]

I still cannot accept the premise that D&D shapes culture when the opposite is so clearly obvious.

But without that premise, wherein lies the problem with sexism or the lack of sexism? Could one not just settle for the fact that dragonkin breasts are no more or less sexist than their target audience?

This goes to the good faith argument. To state 'dragonboobs are sexist and therefore wrong' you have to assert that they influence culture more than they are influenced by it.

Same with boobmail.

I wanted to call attention to your post, since I think that the point you raise goes straight to the heart of the matter. Simply put, there is a very large debate going on across (virtually all of) fandom about whether art imitates life, or life imitates art.

For those who believe that life imitates art, the idea that art, fiction, and media have the power to normalize and reinforce attitudes is assumed, and it thus follows that the media must therefore be made to stop depicting immoral values in a positive way (if not stop depicting them altogether), replacing these with positive values, since these will in turn promulgate and normalize social justice within society at large. Fixing what the media displays is, in this line of thought, a big step forward in fixing what's wrong with our culture. Those who disagree with that are, at best, complicit in maintaining an unequal status quo that continues to oppress those that aren't privileged in society (at worst, those who disagree are actively fighting the empowerment of people that have already been disenfranchised for a very long time).

On the other side of the debate are those who believe that art imitates life. To these people, media and fiction have very little power (if any) to influence or normalize attitudes among mature, mentally competent people. As such, this camp sees no real moral issues to be found in the mass media, since the mass media is largely a reflection of our cultural identity, rather than a creator of it. Ergo, the idea of needing to change the media to de-emphasize perceived immorality and promote morality is a waste of time at best (and an attack - rather than a debate - against those with different ideals, at worst), since the only real way to "fix" the media is to correct the underlying problems with society at large.

Simply put, this is another iteration of a very old, very large debate; only the context in which it's taking place has changed.

 

[Desdichado]

Then maybe you need some new senses opened up?

You have seen the arguments over having exterior breasts molded into armor breastplates, have you not? Boobplate is both not historically accurate for field armor, and just plain stupid from a view of the mechanics of armor. Dragonboobs are just another boobplate - imposing male-oriented sexual imagery onto something that doesn't really need it, and probably shouldn't have it. Probably without a whole lot of thought about it.

The ire is recognition of our casual sexism.

Calling it "political correctness" is dismissive. I submit that recognizing our casual sexism is *actual* correctness.

With regards to your first point, I'd say that "actual correctness" did not feature female breastplates in any significant numbers for anyone to say that there was a historically accurate field model ideal to which to aspire. (And no, I'm not familiar with any such arguments, nor have I ever seen any.)

With regards to the rest of your post, since it delves deeply into politics, I'm extremely surprised you brought it up, knowing that I can't respond to it. (Perks of being a moderator, I assume.) If I could, rather than do so in detail anyway, I would refer you to Helen Smith's excellent Men on Strike, which is a capsule review popular book on the state of "casual sexism." If you prefer more rigor to your approach, I refer you to her bibliography.

And yes, I am dismissive of political correctness. If you got that vibe, then good on you for reading between the lines.

 

[aramis erak]

[MENTION=81446]RA[/MENTION]gnon - platypi are monotremes, not marsupials. And their mammaries lack nipples. They just sort of ooze milk which is wicked by the fur, and that fur sucked upon by the juveniles.

Why does this surprise you? the dwarf females with beards argument was started in ancient days and still rages whenever someone is imprudent enough to bring it up. How people visualize their fantasy worlds is very important -- to them. Look at the D&D5 halfling debacle.

Professor Tolkien wrote in his letters that dwarf women are in fact bearded in Middle Earth. But he didn't do so until many years after LOTR was published. He hints at it in LOTR, tho'.

(Oh, and a note: Just because something suckles young doesn't mean it has breasts. Ever rubbed a female cat's tummy? Most mammals have mammary glands and nipples, but very few have big pads of fatty tissue underneath. In fact, it's something of a question why human women have them.)

Actually, a frequently bred cat, or dog, or even sow (pig), those teats beging to look much like a long udder after about the third litter. And that fatty tissue is there... it's only when one has them neutered before a pregnancy that they don't develop in females.

And at HardCoreD&DGirl: go to enough zoos, and you'll see some pretty pendulous monkey and chimp mammaries. Especially proboscis monkeys.

Well used mammaries get pendulous.

 

[Dausuul]

Warning: my answer is based on Discovery channel I am not expert... even though I have two very nice B cups...

The way I understand it, in monkeys there are but cheek and but cleavage to attract a mate. When we stood up and became erect (ok, I have to be childish with that word in this context ) we need a cleavage on our fronts...

That's the current best guess from what I've read on the subject, but it's only a guess. The problem with attributing any given bit of anatomy to sexual selection is that it's very hard to disprove.

 

[CM]

I really don't care enough one way or another to form an opinion of my own, but in general I see dragonborn as a hybrid mammal/reptile so it could go either way. Essentially I'd leave it up to the player.

 

[Elf Witch]

Because you and others are making an issue out of something that doesn't need to be an issue so I'm trying to argue that it's pointless to argue about it


.

Ok I got to ask... you are aware that when people here talk about "dragon boobs" they're talking about the females of dragonborn, a humanoid PC species? And not actual dragons? I'm pretty sure no edition of D&D gave boobs to actual dragons and nobody here argued that it should be otherwise.

Heh, the issue of dragonboobs came up at our then-all-female table (except for me, the DM) during a session a while back, when one of the girls decided to make her new character a dragonborn. I brought up, in passing, the debate about dragonboobs. (My position pretty much mirrors [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] upthread.) I didn't intend to make it into a thing.

One of the players became annoyed at the idea of "nerds never let girls have anything fun" (fun = boobs, in this case). Another of the players meanwhile found the very idea of dragonboobs downright sexist. Then they argued about which was more sexist for a while. Several points from this thread came up.

I remained silent, at first amused, but soon regretting having brought it up. Then I realizes that the player who actually wanted to play a dragonborn wasn't participating in the argument. Turns out she didn't have many thoughts on the subject, remained non-committal to what was or wasn't sexist, but she'd like her lizard to have boobs. Like in the pictures. So her lizard-witch had boobs that never got mentioned again.

What struck me was that they both made a pretty good case for sexism.

this helps not one bit. I can design dragonborn with breasts by saying they suckle there young (Wotc did this and people still argued) or ones without by saying they don't.

SInce the suckleing doesn't effect 99% of games how do we decide who does and doesn't?

of course you can, when you make up a race you can choose...


the problem is that even when WotC went out of there way to say that dragonborn are not reptile in origin, and that they do breast feed, that wasn't good enough...

I think that's because most of us dragonborn-boob detractors saw it as an ad hoc justification for WotC pandering to guys with more boob-laden, overly sexualized female character art. And I still pretty much do.

The fact that there are female gamers who find that the dragonborn boobs increase their identification with their dragonborn characters, I think, is WotC getting lucky. It surprised me since the women in my group thought the idea of breasts on the creatures was pretty dumb. They're also highly science oriented so they found the presence of breasts not particularly credible, even in a fantasy setting.

so you don't like something... then when you argued it didn't make sense, and they explained it did... you decided to ignore that it now made sense to keep argueing

what about the fact that they have female playtesters and female focus groups that told them exactly what you are saying is "Lucky"

I know very few women that think that way (although more then 0). I personally like to play strong (as in high str not just personality) women, and having the + str race not seem feminine to me would be a mistake... one as big as dwarven beards on dwarven women...

I don't think anyone here is really making it an "issue" I am not I am stating a preference and why I prefer something. It is no different than say stating I prefer paladins to be lawful good. Like I said why are posting on a topic you say you don't care about do you feel the need to educate the rest of us in the error of our ways?

Yes I was aware we are talking about dragonborn. I do have the ability to read a title and I did mention dragonborn several time.

I think if you want you can make an argument that goes both ways of the sexist issue. My opinion on it is a lot like bill91 and my female gaming friends feel the same way we think that putting boobs on dragonborn was pandering and we thought it was kind of silly.

And there were female players who playtested and said no to dragonboobs again we are not a hive mind on this. I think the lucky comment is a little crass we could say then that the anti alignment players got lucky with the changes to alignment to paladins there are always going to be people who don't agree with a direction the game designers go. I for one don't like that dragonborn are warm blooded mammal type creatures in the RAW. And I can change that in my home game and I do.